Yeago’s 4 Circles of Tradition
(How Scripture and tradition work together)
The center-point: The apostolic tradition
• receiving, holding fast, handing on what the apostles handed on to the Church
First circle: the context of the Church’s life as a worshiping and witnessing assembly
• communal context
• gathering to hear the apostolic testimony/word of God, participating in practices instituted in God’s word, responding to the word with praise
• sharing together in communion with God through Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit
• carrying on the apostolic mission
• “Therefore it is only as we are formed by the life of this people, by the practices of this assembly, and by the demands of its mission, that we become competent to read the biblical texts in a way that conforms to God’s design” (27).
• Question: in what light do we read Scripture?
• Tradition “makes possible a common theological enterprise among diverse Christians of past and present” (28).
Second circle: the dogmatic decisions of the Church about the right way to read and interpret Scripture
• Dogma: a rule of interpretation, a binding communal decision about the way the apostolic legacy is to be understood (all dogmas are doctrines, but not all doctrines are dogmas)
• Eg. the Trinitarian expression of faith at Nicaea
• Gives theological diversity a shared framework and protects the people of God
Third circle: doctrinal traditions, traditions of teaching which have a claim to our attention and respect
• Classic doctrines that have proven helpful and illuminating over time
• Eg. Athanasius, Luther, etc.
Fourth circle: the mutuum colloquium et consoloationem fratum, the “mutual conversation and consolation” of brothers and sisters in Christ
• Respects the claim of other Christians (past and present) to be heard when we read and interpret Scripture
• Discernment and openness to the Spirit’s wisdom and instruction expressed through others in the Church
• Continuous network of theological give and take
• Must be connected to the center and other circles
Scripture also must be read according to the “rule of faith”
• The “apostolic message as an ordered whole with its own structure and inner logic” (37)
• Christian beliefs are not always expressed in formulated sentences, but in practices, “the central and characteristic things that the Christian community does” (39)
___
Can Pentecostals agree with this sort of definition of tradition and interaction of Scripture and tradition?
~lg
August 28, 2009
Tradition and traditions - Yeago 1
A lot of my theological thinking was challenged and also crystallized in Systematic Theology classes at Wycliffe. In this class I remember we made the distinction between Tradition (with a capital T) and traditions (lowercase and plural). I think this distinction is quite useful.
Our textbook in this class was a work in progress by David Yeago. Yeago says that at the heart of what it means to be the church is the process of receiving, holding-fast, and handing-on, something he calls a “tradition process” (The Apostolic Faith, Part 1, pg 6). (Cf. 1 Cor 15:1-2) These actions are “core modes of Christian practice” (6). What is being received, held on to and handed down? Essentially the apostolic witness. The apostolic witness is not a thing, or a book, or a doctrine, but “a knowable truth and a corporate way of life built on that truth” (6). Yes, it includes Scripture, but it is bigger than that. It’s a new way of thinking and living, made possible by a new relationship with God through Jesus. As the apostolic message, the gospel (kerygma), is faithfully passed down it takes a form of continuity, and this is what Yeago calls tradition (11). So Tradition is the form of continuity of the apostolic witness.
Yeago say the word of God founds tradition (10). The tradition process has its origin in divine action, in God’s revelation to humanity through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ. God got the process going. The apostles were the first to receive this, hold on to it, and pass it down to the next generation of believers. They didn’t just pass down their own ideas, insights or traditions, but The Word of God spoken definitively in Jesus. So Tradition is not man-made, it is divine in origin.
Yeago also brings up the question of Scripture and tradition. He says it’s a different discussion than what it was like in the days of the reformers, when they were speaking out against human traditions such as indulgences and the like. The real question today in ecumenical discussion is about tradition in the singular. This idea of tradition refers to the “proper formative environment of scriptural interpretation” (27). In order for Scripture to be read and interpreted properly, it must be read from within the Church community, its proper environment, so to speak. Scripture and tradition are not set up as opposing forces. Tradition in its proper sense is the environment/context/perspective from which Scripture should be read.
I really like Yeago’s idea of the formative environment. Christianity includes but is bigger than the Bible. It includes but is bigger than individuals. It includes but is bigger than the present. The Christian worldview and way of life has been passed down in a community with particular attitudes and actions which accompany the Christian message. This community was started by Jesus and the apostles and continues today. The whole Christian package, where it is faithful to the apostolic witness, is what I think is meant by Tradition.
What do you think?
~lg
Our textbook in this class was a work in progress by David Yeago. Yeago says that at the heart of what it means to be the church is the process of receiving, holding-fast, and handing-on, something he calls a “tradition process” (The Apostolic Faith, Part 1, pg 6). (Cf. 1 Cor 15:1-2) These actions are “core modes of Christian practice” (6). What is being received, held on to and handed down? Essentially the apostolic witness. The apostolic witness is not a thing, or a book, or a doctrine, but “a knowable truth and a corporate way of life built on that truth” (6). Yes, it includes Scripture, but it is bigger than that. It’s a new way of thinking and living, made possible by a new relationship with God through Jesus. As the apostolic message, the gospel (kerygma), is faithfully passed down it takes a form of continuity, and this is what Yeago calls tradition (11). So Tradition is the form of continuity of the apostolic witness.
Yeago say the word of God founds tradition (10). The tradition process has its origin in divine action, in God’s revelation to humanity through the life, teachings, death and resurrection of Christ. God got the process going. The apostles were the first to receive this, hold on to it, and pass it down to the next generation of believers. They didn’t just pass down their own ideas, insights or traditions, but The Word of God spoken definitively in Jesus. So Tradition is not man-made, it is divine in origin.
Yeago also brings up the question of Scripture and tradition. He says it’s a different discussion than what it was like in the days of the reformers, when they were speaking out against human traditions such as indulgences and the like. The real question today in ecumenical discussion is about tradition in the singular. This idea of tradition refers to the “proper formative environment of scriptural interpretation” (27). In order for Scripture to be read and interpreted properly, it must be read from within the Church community, its proper environment, so to speak. Scripture and tradition are not set up as opposing forces. Tradition in its proper sense is the environment/context/perspective from which Scripture should be read.
I really like Yeago’s idea of the formative environment. Christianity includes but is bigger than the Bible. It includes but is bigger than individuals. It includes but is bigger than the present. The Christian worldview and way of life has been passed down in a community with particular attitudes and actions which accompany the Christian message. This community was started by Jesus and the apostles and continues today. The whole Christian package, where it is faithful to the apostolic witness, is what I think is meant by Tradition.
What do you think?
~lg
August 27, 2009
Tradition and traditions - introductory thoughts
To jump in out of nowhere, I’ve been thinking lately about the whole idea of tradition. Part of it has to do with the fact that I just started reading Yves Congar’s The Meaning of Tradition. Yes, there is definitely an obvious connection there. But how did I ever get interested in the topic in the first place? I like to blame the Anglicans. (Something which I expect to do a lot of on this blog!)
I’ve always liked old stuff – history, museums, churches with stained glass windows, antique stores, the “olden days”. Granted, part of my fascination is likely a personality thing. But I think it’s related to my church upbringing too. Growing up in a Pentecostal church, we were more or less taught to view tradition in the church as a negative thing. Tradition is something that gets in the way of the Sprit’s freedom, something that competes with the Scriptures, something that leads to all sorts of extra-biblical excesses like buying people out of purgatory. And it can’t be backed up by the Bible, and if it’s not in the Bible, well then we want nothing to do with it. This sort of thinking is perfectly understandable to me now, as Pentecostals have Protestant values (the pope is the antichrist!) and were practically kicked out of mainline churches for speaking in tongues, definitely NOT part of most churches’ traditions at the time of the Azuza Street revival! Pope jokes aside, the reformation spirit is strong, along with a desire to return to the sources of the faith – the Bible – as the primary measure of doctrine and the life of faith. The desire to be like the early church of Pentecost is also strong. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be part of the action in Acts? And Pentecostals believe it’s truly possible for the Spirit to be just as much a part of our lives now as He was in Acts, and if that means tongues, well bring it on.
So much of the Pentecostal thinking about tradition has been shaped in a reactionary way. The discussion has remained largely polemical. It’s like we are still trying to defend ourselves against the RCC of Luther’s day, or those who freaked out on us a hundred years ago in Los Angeles and Toronto. Well I say, it’s time to move on people, and think about things in a new way. Because while we’ve been priding ourselves on the fact that we don’t let man-man traditions get in the way of the plain meaning of the Bible, something has been happening in our churches the last century. We’ve been developing our own … brace yourselves … traditions! (A comic strip gasp is perfectly appropriate here.)
Now, back to the Anglicans. I took my non-traditional self to an Anglican seminary in 2006, to gain a Master of Theological Studies degree and an ecumenical experience. (And many sleepless nights later, I got both!) One of the things I really enjoyed about being part of an Anglican community were the things like… stained glass windows, familiarity with the church fathers, memorizing the liturgical confession (why was the confession the easiest part to memorize? I’ll leave that to you to ponder), and just a general feeling that stuff we were doing went back a looooong way, and was somehow connected with saints and servants of the Christian past. I liked feeling like I was part of something bigger, something older, like I was engaged in actions that had been considered and contemplated for centuries. I liked being caught up in traditions that were bigger than myself. Ok, like I admitted earlier, perhaps some personalities are just more attracted to old stuff. Or perhaps these things were filling a void in my non-liturgical life. A very valid void that needed to be paid attention to. A void that had been experienced by others coming out of my (and similar) backgrounds, and had even driven some of them to jump ship and hoist the Anglican flag in surrender. And it all had something to do with tradition. Hmmnnn.
~lg
I’ve always liked old stuff – history, museums, churches with stained glass windows, antique stores, the “olden days”. Granted, part of my fascination is likely a personality thing. But I think it’s related to my church upbringing too. Growing up in a Pentecostal church, we were more or less taught to view tradition in the church as a negative thing. Tradition is something that gets in the way of the Sprit’s freedom, something that competes with the Scriptures, something that leads to all sorts of extra-biblical excesses like buying people out of purgatory. And it can’t be backed up by the Bible, and if it’s not in the Bible, well then we want nothing to do with it. This sort of thinking is perfectly understandable to me now, as Pentecostals have Protestant values (the pope is the antichrist!) and were practically kicked out of mainline churches for speaking in tongues, definitely NOT part of most churches’ traditions at the time of the Azuza Street revival! Pope jokes aside, the reformation spirit is strong, along with a desire to return to the sources of the faith – the Bible – as the primary measure of doctrine and the life of faith. The desire to be like the early church of Pentecost is also strong. I mean, who wouldn’t want to be part of the action in Acts? And Pentecostals believe it’s truly possible for the Spirit to be just as much a part of our lives now as He was in Acts, and if that means tongues, well bring it on.
So much of the Pentecostal thinking about tradition has been shaped in a reactionary way. The discussion has remained largely polemical. It’s like we are still trying to defend ourselves against the RCC of Luther’s day, or those who freaked out on us a hundred years ago in Los Angeles and Toronto. Well I say, it’s time to move on people, and think about things in a new way. Because while we’ve been priding ourselves on the fact that we don’t let man-man traditions get in the way of the plain meaning of the Bible, something has been happening in our churches the last century. We’ve been developing our own … brace yourselves … traditions! (A comic strip gasp is perfectly appropriate here.)
Now, back to the Anglicans. I took my non-traditional self to an Anglican seminary in 2006, to gain a Master of Theological Studies degree and an ecumenical experience. (And many sleepless nights later, I got both!) One of the things I really enjoyed about being part of an Anglican community were the things like… stained glass windows, familiarity with the church fathers, memorizing the liturgical confession (why was the confession the easiest part to memorize? I’ll leave that to you to ponder), and just a general feeling that stuff we were doing went back a looooong way, and was somehow connected with saints and servants of the Christian past. I liked feeling like I was part of something bigger, something older, like I was engaged in actions that had been considered and contemplated for centuries. I liked being caught up in traditions that were bigger than myself. Ok, like I admitted earlier, perhaps some personalities are just more attracted to old stuff. Or perhaps these things were filling a void in my non-liturgical life. A very valid void that needed to be paid attention to. A void that had been experienced by others coming out of my (and similar) backgrounds, and had even driven some of them to jump ship and hoist the Anglican flag in surrender. And it all had something to do with tradition. Hmmnnn.
~lg
thinking and writing theologically
Welcome to red letters theology, a new blog which branches out into more theological thoughts.
I'm actually starting it as a means of pushing myself to keep thinking and writing theologically. I don't know about you, but for me thoughts don't feel complete unless I write them down. So there will be a lot of talking to myself on here, but you are most welcome to listen in, agree or disagree, and contribute your own thoughts or comments.
~lg
I'm actually starting it as a means of pushing myself to keep thinking and writing theologically. I don't know about you, but for me thoughts don't feel complete unless I write them down. So there will be a lot of talking to myself on here, but you are most welcome to listen in, agree or disagree, and contribute your own thoughts or comments.
~lg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)